LRL Finally Resolved - TFIC

[aarthrj3811]

Like I said before, all of your alleged examples are bogus, because there was no agreed upon protocol.

Gee EE...Does that mean that 4 people that I know of could not agree about a contract protocol?

What do you people have against signing a protocol agreement, if you're not up to trickery?

I have not read one of Carl’s contracts..Have you?...Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Like I said before, all of your alleged examples are bogus, because there was no agreed upon protocol.

Gee EE...Does that mean that 4 people that I know of could not agree about a contract protocol?

What do you people have against signing a protocol agreement, if you're not up to trickery?

I have not read one of Carl’s contracts..Have you?...Art

It means that they did not sign a protocol contract, yes. That's obvious.

Carl's protocol is throughly explained on his Website.


we've been all through this several times before---

Boy...I thought I may have been in trouble for leading you around for the past few months

Leading people around in circles only proves that you can't back up your own claims with proper proof.

You have also stated many times that you do not intend to try and provide any proper proof. The only reason a person would take that stance, is if he knew all along that he can't.









Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

It means that they did not sign a protocol contract, yes. That's obvious.

No..It is clear that they could not agree on a contract.

Carl's protocol is throughly explained on his Website.

Yes it is and is clear that it is not a double blind test.

Leading people around in circles only proves that you can't back up your own claims with proper proof.

What circles are you talking about?

You have also stated many times that you do not intend to try and provide any proper proof.

Gee..We have put tons of prove on this board..Sorry that you have none.

The only reason a person would take that stance, is if he knew all along that he can't.

It is not clear what you are talking about...Art

 

[EE THr]

It means that they did not sign a protocol contract, yes. That's obvious.

No..It is clear that they could not agree on a contract.

What's so hard to agree on? Either your LRL can find stuff or it can't.

Carl's protocol is throughly explained on his Website.

Yes it is and is clear that it is not a double blind test.

That's been argued before, and you lost. But it's a moot point anyway---all you have to do is take your LRL and find the stuff, and you get the 25K. Who cares what you call it?

Leading people around in circles only proves that you can't back up your own claims with proper proof.

What circles are you talking about?

The ones that your post go in. The same old, previously debunked many times, nonsense claims.

You have also stated many times that you do not intend to try and provide any proper proof.

Gee..We have put tons of prove on this board..Sorry that you have none.

You have posted claims, and nonsense attempts at proof. You refuse to provide any real proof, even though you have been asked to many times. You have even been shown how to do it locally, so you won't need to travel (although the 25K would way more than pay your travel expenses). You have even claimed, many times, that the reason you don't take Carl's test is because you don't need the money; then turn around and complain about the travel expenses, saying that you are too poor to go. Now that's circular logic!

The only reason a person would take that stance, is if he knew all along that he can't.

It is not clear what you are talking about...Art

Let me make it perfectly clear for you. The only reason you don't win Carl's $25,000.00 is because your LRLs don't work!

If you can't understand that, go buy a dictionary.

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.
"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Let me make it perfectly clear for you. The only reason you don't win Carl's $25,000.00 is because your LRLs don't work!

If you can't understand that, go buy a dictionary.

I own 4 LRL’s and MFD’s..they all do what they were designed to do..That would be locate and recover treasure.
I have 2 dictionaries and the whole internet available to me...What good would it be to me to purchase another one?...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Let me make it perfectly clear for you. The only reason you don't win Carl's $25,000.00 is because your LRLs don't work!

If you can't understand that, go buy a dictionary.

I own 4 LRL’s and MFD’s..they all do what they were designed to do..That would be locate and recover treasure.
I have 2 dictionaries and the whole internet available to me...What good would it be to me to purchase another one?...Art

There you go again, trying to prove your previous claims, by merely making new claims. And that's just going around in circles. Is there anything about that that you don't understand?

The whole point is that you refuse to prove your claims, and the only reason for that would be that you can't.






Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

There you go again, trying to prove your previous claims, by merely making new claims. And that's just going around in circles. Is there anything about that that you don't understand?

The whole point is that you refuse to prove your claims, and the only reason for that would be that you can't.

We have posted many testimonials on this board. We have provided you with web sites to 100’s more. We have provided photo’s of finds. We have provided you with movies of how these devices work... We have shot down every claim made by the skeptics. So ...please tell the membership just what form of proof we have not provided to you...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

There you go again, trying to prove your previous claims, by merely making new claims. And that's just going around in circles. Is there anything about that that you don't understand?

The whole point is that you refuse to prove your claims, and the only reason for that would be that you can't.

We have posted many testimonials on this board. We have provided you with web sites to 100’s more. We have provided photo’s of finds. We have provided you with movies of how these devices work... We have shot down every claim made by the skeptics. So ...please tell the membership just what form of proof we have not provided to you...Art

Been there, done that, dozens of times.








Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Art~

So ...please tell the membership just what form of proof we have not provided to you...Art

~EE~

Been there, done that, dozens of times.

As usual you duck and dodge..The proof that I know how to use my LRL is here http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=aarthrj3811
So yes..I have Been there, done that, thousands of times...So there is the proof that I can pass Carl’s bogus Double Blind test..Art

 

[EE THr]

~Art~

So ...please tell the membership just what form of proof we have not provided to you...Art

~EE~

Been there, done that, dozens of times.

As usual you duck and dodge..The proof that I know how to use my LRL is here http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=aarthrj3811
So yes..I have Been there, done that, thousands of times...So there is the proof that I can pass Carl’s bogus Double Blind test..Art

First of all, "the membership" isn't reading this forum. There are only about a half dozen posting, and maybe another half dozen just reading from time-to-time. Try checking the "Views" column once in awhile.

Secondly, I'm not jumping through hoops for you anymore. Others, and myself, have already posted proofs of our statements, many, many times. Yet you just keep asking for the same ones.

We have also refuted your nonsensical claims, many, many times. And, again, you still make the exact same nonsensical claims, and say that they somehow "prove" something.

The only proof that you can pass Carl's test, is to actually pass Carl's test, and as a bonus, you would win the $25,000.00.

I could make a video like yours, using my cat as an "LRL," and make his tail wag when I'm over a silver dollar! Wanna buy a magic cat?





A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.
"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

First of all, "the membership" isn't reading this forum. There are only about a half dozen posting, and maybe another half dozen just reading from time-to-time. Try checking the "Views" column once in awhile.

You are wrong as usual,,
aarthrj3811, JudyH and 2 Guests are viewing this board.

The only proof that you can pass Carl's test, is to actually pass Carl's test, and as a bonus, you would win the $25,000.00.

So you are saying that published finds, photo’s and movies are not proof?. Are you also say that the word of the skeptics is the only thing that is exceptable?

I could make a video like yours, using my cat as an "LRL," and make his tail wag when I'm over a silver dollar! Wanna buy a magic cat?

When do we get to see your movie?...That would prove more than taking Carl's test wpould...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

First of all, "the membership" isn't reading this forum. There are only about a half dozen posting, and maybe another half dozen just reading from time-to-time. Try checking the "Views" column once in awhile.

You are wrong as usual,,
aarthrj3811, JudyH and 2 Guests are viewing this board.

The only proof that you can pass Carl's test, is to actually pass Carl's test, and as a bonus, you would win the $25,000.00.

So you are saying that published finds, photo’s and movies are not proof?. Are you also say that the word of the skeptics is the only thing that is exceptable?

I could make a video like yours, using my cat as an "LRL," and make his tail wag when I'm over a silver dollar! Wanna buy a magic cat?

When do we get to see your movie?...That would prove more than taking Carl's test wpould...Art

Oh, sorry...two posting and three reading. Boy, did I goof!

As all of us have told you, many, many times before. No, those aren't proof. Only facts are proof.

I don't know about the movie...now the cat wants union scale.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~E~

As all of us have told you, many, many times before. No, those aren't proof. Only facts are proof.

The only proof you claim to have is that no one has taken Carl’s test..You ignore all the people who have not been able to work out a reasonable contract with him...So we now have Randi and Carl who have never let anyone qualify for their tests...

 

[EE THr]

~E~

As all of us have told you, many, many times before. No, those aren't proof. Only facts are proof.

The only proof you claim to have is that no one has taken Carl’s test..You ignore all the people who have not been able to work out a reasonable contract with him...So we now have Randi and Carl who have never let anyone qualify for their tests...

So, now you are calling cheating, slight-of-hand tricks, and previous knowledge of where the targets are located, "reasonable." That's typical of your style, Art. Like I've said before, at least you're consistant!

"Qualifying" merely means agreeing to a fair, Scientifically controlled test. But you always refuse to do that.

But then, we've been through all this before, too.

​

Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

So, now you are calling cheating, slight-of-hand tricks, and previous knowledge of where the targets are located, "reasonable." That's typical of your style, Art. Like I've said before, at least you're consistant!

Gee EE..I don’t know anyone that has been accused of that except for Carl..

"Qualifying" merely means agreeing to a fair, Scientifically controlled test. But you always refuse to do that.

Darn...I have outlined how a Scientific test should be ran...I have also said that you may find more than a few people to aide in the test.

But then, we've been through all this before, too.

Yes we have and you still do not comprehend what real Scientific test are done...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

So, now you are calling cheating, slight-of-hand tricks, and previous knowledge of where the targets are located, "reasonable." That's typical of your style, Art. Like I've said before, at least you're consistant!

Gee EE..I don’t know anyone that has been accused of that except for Carl..

Then you are saying that you don't know yourself. But that figures, too.

"Qualifying" merely means agreeing to a fair, Scientifically controlled test. But you always refuse to do that.

Darn...I have outlined how a Scientific test should be ran...I have also said that you may find more than a few people to aide in the test.

Yeah, I remember that. You wanted me to pay thousands of dollars to hire a herd of people, for some silly reason. That's as bad as Arch wanting to be paid 10K...whether he succeeded or not. Your logic is not in alignment with Reality. And that's nothing new, either.

But then, we've been through all this before, too.

Yes we have and you still do not comprehend what real Scientific test are done...Art

Whatever you call it, the test is, "Nobody present at the test knows where the target is. And you either find it with your LRL, or you don't." That's too simple for even you to screw it up. But I'm sure you will try, because you already have, many, many times.

​

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.
"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[aarthrj3811]

So, now you are calling cheating, slight-of-hand tricks, and previous knowledge of where the targets are located, "reasonable." That's typical of your style, Art. Like I've said before, at least you're consistant!

~Art~

Gee EE..I don’t know anyone that has been accused of that except for Carl..

~EE~

Then you are saying that you don't know yourself. But that figures, too.

And this comes from the leader of the Skeptic Cult
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
. Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But only skeptics really know.

Secondly, I'm not jumping through hoops for you anymore. Others, and myself, have already posted proofs of our statements, many, many times. Yet you just keep asking for the same ones.

~Art~

Darn...I have outlined how a Scientific test should be ran...I have also said that you may find more than a few people to aide in the test.

~EE~

Yeah, I remember that. You wanted me to pay thousands of dollars to hire a herd of people, for some silly reason. That's as bad as Arch wanting to be paid 10K...whether he succeeded or not. Your logic is not in alignment with Reality. And that's nothing new, either.

My information came from people who were in charge of double blind product tests..Where does your information come from?
~ART~

Yes we have and you still do not comprehend what real Scientific test are done...Art

Whatever you call it, the test is, "Nobody present at the test knows where the target is. And you either find it with your LRL, or you don't." That's too simple for even you to screw it up. But I'm sure you will try, because you already have, many, many times.

~EE~

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

In the real world that is called false advertisement..I do not participate in them.,..Art

 

[EE THr]

So, now you are calling cheating, slight-of-hand tricks, and previous knowledge of where the targets are located, "reasonable." That's typical of your style, Art. Like I've said before, at least you're consistant!

~Art~

Gee EE..I don’t know anyone that has been accused of that except for Carl..

~EE~

Then you are saying that you don't know yourself. But that figures, too.

And this comes from the leader of the Skeptic Cult
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
. Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But only skeptics really know.

Scientists are human, and thus vary widely. The Scientific Method is not, and does not. You are trying to compare apples with oranges. Just more of your trickery.

Secondly, I'm not jumping through hoops for you anymore. Others, and myself, have already posted proofs of our statements, many, many times. Yet you just keep asking for the same ones.

~Art~

Darn...I have outlined how a Scientific test should be ran...I have also said that you may find more than a few people to aide in the test.

~EE~

Yeah, I remember that. You wanted me to pay thousands of dollars to hire a herd of people, for some silly reason. That's as bad as Arch wanting to be paid 10K...whether he succeeded or not. Your logic is not in alignment with Reality. And that's nothing new, either.

My information came from people who were in charge of double blind product tests..Where does your information come from?

The actual Scientific definition of "double-blind." You talked to drug and food testers. LRLs are not food, although they might be considered a type of drug. We've debated this before, also, and you lost that one too.


~ART~

Yes we have and you still do not comprehend what real Scientific test are done...Art

Whatever you call it, the test is, "Nobody present at the test knows where the target is. And you either find it with your LRL, or you don't." That's too simple for even you to screw it up. But I'm sure you will try, because you already have, many, many times.

~EE~

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

In the real world that is called false advertisement..I do not participate in them.,..Art

You have said that many times before, but you have never been able to produce any evidence, because you have never actually been involved in either Carl's or Randi's tests. So now everyone knows on what you base your evidence---thin air. It's all just BS. And more of your going around and around in never ending circles.

Can't you think of anything new? Even if it's a product of your imagination? Or has the person who was feeding you this phony information, disappeared on you?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Art~

Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But only skeptics really know.

~EE~

Scientists are human, and thus vary widely. The Scientific Method is not, and does not. You are trying to compare apples with oranges. Just more of your trickery.

So you agree with Randi?
~Art~

So, now you are calling cheating, slight-of-hand tricks, and previous knowledge of where the targets are located, "reasonable." That's typical of your style, Art. Like I've said before, at least you're consistant!

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
,” we learn how to become a media authority: “Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not.”
As we know, it works a little differently in science. You can’t just say you’re an expert in, say, paleoanthropology unless you’ve actually done the work, either at an accredited university or on your own. By contrast, a skeptic need only form a club with like-minded people. “As head of your local skeptic club, you’re entitled to call yourself an authority. If your other two members agree to it, you can be the spokesperson too.”
Who are the tricksters?..
~EE~

The actual Scientific definition of "double-blind." You talked to drug and food testers. LRLs are not food, although they might be considered a type of drug. We've debated this before, also, and you lost that one too.

Yes..I got advise from people who have been in charge of Double Blind test..they worked for Proctor and Gamble and Campbell Soup..I may be wrong but I think they produce real products just like LRL manufacturers.
~EE~

You have said that many times before, but you have never been able to produce any evidence, because you have never actually been involved in either Carl's or Randi's tests. So now everyone knows on what you base your evidence---thin air. It's all just BS. And more of your going around and around in never ending circles.

You are correct..I have not been involved in Carl’s and Randi’s tests except for attending two demonstrations that Carl set up. I join a large group of people that have not taken Carl’s test.( the population of the whole world)..
~EE~

Can't you think of anything new? Even if it's a product of your imagination? Or has the person who was feeding you this phony information, disappeared on you?

Seems to me that the only thing you want to talk about is your view of Carl’s test..You seem to be imagining that it is a Double Blind Test and that it will finally give you skeptics some proof...The people I get my information from are friends and still are..Art

 

[EE THr]

Art---

No, any test that Carl set up, would be according to his protocol, as posted on his site, linked at the bottom of this post. You have already admitted that your "examples" were not in agreement with his Scientific test protocol. Your "challengers" might have alleged that they wished to follow Scientific protocol, but they eventually refused to agree to it. Your attempt to use those as "examples" shows your willingness to use false information, and discredits anything else you claim.

The issue of "double-blind" testing for LRL devices has already been covered in the Random Double-Blind Tests for LRLs thread, in which your attempts to substitute irrelevent meanings for the actual definition, were resoundingly debunked. And now you are attempting, all over again, to use the same BS, even though you know it is wrong. Again, your egarness to use false information has been proven out by you, yourself.

Like I have said many times before, and it still holds true, "You are your own best 'skeptic.' "

I look forward to many more post from you, because you always prove my points. Thanks in advance.







Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?